Good morning, have you had your cup of fascism today?

[Beldaran]

I go to a fascist, discriminatory institution that promotes intellectual backwardness:

(from http://www.wikipedia.org)

-----------------------------------

Conservatives have criticised Baylor as a BINO (Baptist In Name Only) university. Tom DeLay, who had been expelled from Baylor for drinking, was reported as responding to a parent:

‘Don’t send your kids to Baylor. And don’t send your kids to [Texas] A&M,’ DeLay answered, to vigorous applause. ‘There are still some Christian schools out there—good, solid schools. Now, they may be little, they may not be as prestigious as Stanford, but your kids will get a good, solid, godly education.’[7]
Baylor also came under fire from both sides of the evolution debate for the hiring of intelligent design advocate William Dembski and the subsequent decision not to renew his contract.[8]

Conservatives are also concerned at the number of graduates who espouse liberal views, such as Ann Richards. Conversely, moderate to liberal Baylor students and alumni have objected to the lack of courtesy that certain students have afforded to Ann Richards when she has spoken on campus, as well as to the idea that Baylor should seek to attract only students of a particular political affiliation.

Baylor has also been criticized for its policy regarding homosexual students; the student handbook explicitly prohibits homosexuality, and same-sex partner benefits are not offered to employees.

In the second half of 2003, Matthew Bass, a seminary student, announced to his friends he was gay. Word of this revelation soon reached the dean of the seminary, and on December 17, Bass received a letter with news that his scholarship had been revoked. Dean Paul Powell cited three major reasons for his scholarship termination. The primary reason was based on the text of the Bible, specifically 1 Corinthians. Secondly, Powell says his duty is to train students for ministry in Baptist churches, and being a homosexual directly contradicts the Baptist lifestyle. Lastly, Baylor scholarship money is often donated from conservative organizations, which Baylor must meet certain standards for where to spend that money. As a result, Bass stated he was not able to attend Baylor University because of lack of money for tuition. Shortly after leaving Baylor, Bass sent numerous pornographic emails to Baylor staff members which had been edited to portray them in sexual acts. After tracing the emails and bringing a lawsuit, Baylor forced Bass to pay $77,000. link

On September 12, 2005, Baylor graduate Tim Smith was removed from the Hankamer School of Business advisory board on similar grounds. link


------------------

[Now get this, this is their "BAYLOR 2012" program. It scares me. It really does.]

In 2000, the university sought to expand its vision of a scholarly institution with a strong sense of Christianity. Baylor, under then President Robert Sloan Jr., created a written statement to detail the exact goals of this vision. This statement was appropriately titled, Baylor 2012, the year by which the school hopes to achieve its aims. The university intends to "enter the top tier of American universities while reaffirming and deepening its distinctive Christian mission." [2] It was presented in September 2001, and approved by the Board of Regents shortly afterwards. The Vision is based upon twelve key imperatives designed to create a more fulfilling educational experience in a unique Christian environment. The twelve imperatives are:


The Baylor Sciences Building, completed in the fall of 2004, is a product of Baylor 2012.Establish an environment where learning can flourish
Create a truly residential campus
Develop a world-class faculty
Attract and support a top-tier student body
Initiate outstanding new academic programs in selected areas
Guide all Baylor students, through academic and student life programming, to understand life as a stewardship and work as a vocation
Provide outstanding academic facilities
Construct useful and aesthetically pleasing physical spaces
Enhance involvement of the entire Baylor family
Build with integrity a winning athletic tradition in all sports
Emphasize global education
Achieve a two-billion dollar endowment
Baylor 2012 has encountered opposition since its inception. The Vision led to a polarization of faculty opinion that culminated in the resignation of President Robert Sloan Jr. in June 2005. Opponents argue that the Vision will limit academic freedom and hinder intellectual growth due to an excessive focus on Christian interpretation. Others predict that rising tuition costs needed to implement the Vision will reduce enrollment and render many middle class families unable to afford a Baylor education.

However, Baylor's administration has countered that increased tuition costs are comparable to those of other private universities and that preserving and strengthening Christian values at the university is of paramount importance. As of February 2006, the university has received a record number of applications from both freshmen and transfer students. [3]

-------------------------------

I hope that after I graduate I become an international symbol of athiest liberalism and intellectual hedonism, being forever a shame to the university that educated me. I really would have liked to go to a different university with different values, but I sort of had no choice unless I wanted to move really far away, which I couldn't afford to do at the time.

[punkonjunk1024]

fucking terrifying.
What the fuck is wrong with people? You want your faith? Fine, I'll argue it, but keep it.
But fuck, hurting other people for not sharing it, being biggoted and close minded...

Shit.

[SixTen]

I hate these christians who are too full of themselves to even tolerate the views of others.

The gay kid being kicked out of school is rediculous. It should be up to whatever church hires him to care whether or not he's gay not the school that educates him.

[Ich]

I salute your efforts. If you get famous as a rock star, make sure to talk about doing heroin in the Baylor dorms which you bought from your RA.

[AtmaWeapon]

I hate these christians who are too full of themselves to even tolerate the views of others.

The gay kid being kicked out of school is rediculous. It should be up to whatever church hires him to care whether or not he's gay not the school that educates him.

First a bit of fun I always have:

http://www.atmaweapon.org/images/emot/eng101.gifridiculous

Your first statement is self-defeating. You fail to tolerate the views of strict fundamentalists on the grounds that failing to tolerate the views of others is wrong. There is a problem with this.

And with respect to a homosexual (remember, 'gay' is considered an intolerant and insulting term to many homosexuals) being expelled, it depends upon whether we're talking about a public or private college. I'm too lazy to do the research, but if Baylor is privately funded they have the right to exclude whoever they please.

Secondly, the man was trying to become a Baptist minister. Think about whether his lifestyle and his occupation match. I am a Southern Baptist who understands the doctrine more than my more stereotypical brethren and I believe that homosexuals have a place in the church alongside all of us sinners. However, the minister of the church is to be held to a different standard than the rest of us. While I do not see a portion of 1 Corinthians that pertains to appointing a minister, it does have quite a few words against sexual immorality. I strongly believe a homosexual man has no business as a minister.

Third, you didn't even read the article. The man's scholarship was revoked on the above grounds, in addition to concerns that the conservative organizations donating the money might not support how it was being spent. He left the university of his own accord.

Finally, we are dealing with a man of class here:
Shortly after leaving Baylor, Bass sent numerous pornographic emails to Baylor staff members which had been edited to portray them in sexual acts.I'm sure that made the university regret its decision.

Also Beldaran keep raging against that machine man. You're showing all of us dumb Christians just what we're missing. :)

[punkonjunk1024]

since when do you uh, *Insert flaming here*?
Seriously, wtf atma?
Just because they have the right DOESNT MEAN ITS RIGHT.
Hitler HAD THE RIGHT to kill the jews. It wasn't our business. Should we have stayed outta that, too?
Hell, I woulda sent classic goat.cx posters to the damn place if they did that.
I'd put em up on campus.

I can't believe someone actually defended that article.
Especially you atma... I had alot of respect for you back in the day.
I mean, at least phatty is an open minded christian.
Shit, man.

[Beldaran]

Your first statement is self-defeating. You fail to tolerate the views of strict fundamentalists on the grounds that failing to tolerate the views of others is wrong. There is a problem with this.

You're right dude. Let's go apologize to all those Nazis we killed. Intolerance should be tolerated. Right? Right???

No wait, I know. We should revoke the civil rights act. I mean, it's not tolerant of us to be intolerant of treating black people like animals with no rights or human dignity.

The government should shove the principles of equality and human rights down the throats of any religion or group that opposes them, whether it's crazy muslims or radical christians. Period.


but if Baylor is privately funded they have the right to exclude whoever they please.


Baylor is privately funded. I'm not questioning their rights. I'm just saying it's pathetic and un-american.



Secondly, the man was trying to become a Baptist minister. Think about whether his lifestyle and his occupation match. I am a Southern Baptist who understands the doctrine more than my more stereotypical brethren and I believe that homosexuals have a place in the church alongside all of us sinners. However, the minister of the church is to be held to a different standard than the rest of us. While I do not see a portion of 1 Corinthians that pertains to appointing a minister, it does have quite a few words against sexual immorality. I strongly believe a homosexual man has no business as a minister.

And I strongly believe baptists have no business voting or opening their mouths, and yet they persist. If he wants to be a baptist minister on Sunday and fuck some ass on monday, I don't see what the big fucking deal is. It's not like he would be the first religious hypocrit on earth.



Third, you didn't even read the article. The man's scholarship was revoked on the above grounds, in addition to concerns that the conservative organizations donating the money might not support how it was being spent. He left the university of his own accord.


Yeah his scholarship was revoked so he decided not to go anymore because he had no money. :s



Finally, we are dealing with a man of class here:I'm sure that made the university regret its decision.

I'm sure I'd be a model of politeness after being discriminated against for my sexual preferences.:googly: NOT. If only those uppity blacks had shown some class and not refused to sit in the back of the bus. For shame.



Also Beldaran keep raging against that machine man. You're showing all of us dumb Christians just what we're missing. :)

I don't think christians are dumb. My parents are christians. My girlfriend's parents are christians. My sister is a christian. I was raised as a christian and attended church for years. I think christians suffer from a mental disorder that causes them to talk to themselves, believe in invisible things, and make insane life decisions based on a mistranslated collection of letters and cultural histories of a primitive ancient culture that believed the earth was flat and women were inferior. Oh and they discriminate against people who don't share their fantasies, and they worship a carpenter who lived 2000 years ago. The logic overwhelmes me.:scared:

[AtmaWeapon]

Hmm I got far less out of these replies than I expected. Those who are following along at home can see how quickly Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law) was invoked.

Punkonjunk your post was filled with nothing more than hyperbole and really the only valid point you made was the statement that whether an entity has the right to do something has little to do with whether the action is morally correct or not. This is actually quite the ethical conundrum because it presents the idea that perhaps sometimes being lawful is morally bad, and being lawless is morally right.

I do not support the idea of throwing a student out of a college for being a homosexual. I do, however, wish to point out that Baptists in general are not as tolerant of homosexuality as they should be and in particular do not wish for their ministers to be homosexual. Now, analogies to this situation are difficult as homosexuality is not a disability or disorder, but I think I can find one that can fit.

To be most accurate, I'd say the issue is 'Who would we want as our moral role model?' and I think I have something right up your alley. Beldaran seems rather opposed to fundamentalism in any form. Do you think Beldaran would rather see a Baptist minister or an athiest as President? My guess would be an athiest, because Beldaran would want a leader who would agree with him on issues of morality. Isn't this intolerance, though? If both men were evenly matched it would be fine, but what if the Baptist minister was more qualified for leadership than the athiest? You would have a citizen choosing the leader that fits his moral standards, which is a natural behavior.

The man who decided to withdraw Bass's scholarship made the same decision. You'd find few Baptists who would agree that a homosexual is a great moral role model for their kids. Regardless of whether you think homosexuality is correct, Baptists interpret the Bible as condemning homosexuality.

Now, is it right to expel someone from a college on the basis of sexual preference? Yes and no. In this case the morality of the individual was a primary factor in considering the man's fitness for his career, and he was found lacking. Current law supports a private organization's right to discriminate, and I support that law.

Furthermore, even if the current law were overturned, the decision would still be lawful. Bass was attempting to become a Baptist minister. This is an issue of Church, not State. The government cannot force any church to accept a minister and this is one of the founding principles of the Constitution. If we can't have the Ten Commandments in court, you can't tell Christians how to run their organizations.

Time to transistion to Beldaran. I was deeply disappointed that you jumped on the Nazi bandwagon as well. We're hardly shipping homosexuals to labor camps and furnaces, so your first paragraph is covered above.


Baylor is privately funded. I'm not questioning their rights. I'm just saying it's pathetic and un-american.I would normally defend the rights of a homosexual who was discriminated against but as stated before this is a matter of church morality and the laws of the government do not apply. This is as un-american as drinking beer at a baseball game, since the Constitution and federal law strongly support the independence of the Church and the rights of private organizations to restrict membership.


And I strongly believe baptists have no business voting or opening their mouths, and yet they persist. If he wants to be a baptist minister on Sunday and fuck some ass on monday, I don't see what the big fucking deal is. It's not like he would be the first religious hypocrit on earth.Which is more un-American, exercising the rights of private organizations and the separation of Church and State or mentioning that some class of individuals has no business voting? I don't agree with atheism but I encourage all peoples to vote, as the interests of the majority are best for the country. I would hardly stoop to saying any class of people should refrain from voting.

However, you are correct in saying that he would not be the first religious hypocrite (http://www.atmaweapon.org/images/emot/eng101.gif) on Earth, but why do we need more?

No need to quote the scholarship sentence. The man was applying for a job he knew he was unfit for. Perhaps he should have spent his time and energy applying for a position that did not have implicit beliefs about homosexuality attached to it.


I'm sure I'd be a model of politeness after being discriminated against for my sexual preferences. NOT. If only those uppity blacks had shown some class and not refused to sit in the back of the bus. For shame.Ahh but the man did nothing but hurt the case for homosexuals as ministers. He was rejected
for concerns that his morality was in question, and responded by sending insulting pornography to the staff of the university. I'm sure the staff at Baylor learned an important lesson about the morality of homosexuals from him. Perhaps if he had handled the situation in a manner that befits an adult he could have made some of the staff question if homosexuals were really evil at heart?


I don't think christians are dumb. My parents are christians. My girlfriend's parents are christians. My sister is a christian. I was raised as a christian and attended church for years. I think christians suffer from a mental disorder that causes them to talk to themselves, believe in invisible things, and make insane life decisions based on a mistranslated collection of letters and cultural histories of a primitive ancient culture that believed the earth was flat and women were inferior. Oh and they discriminate against people who don't share their fantasies, and they worship a carpenter who lived 2000 years ago.I'll bite on your poorly veiled ad hominem because they are just so fun. Yes, we are quite the rowdy bunch, aren't we? Not like those athiests who believe that there is a Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, though at some point in time all matter in the universe was spontaneously generated. And any physicist can tell you we have seen quarks and know all of the physical characteristics of light. There is nothing more for man to learn because all of science and reason is fact and all theories are true because they are.

There is one invisible thing I am sure you believe it. Is that really air you breathe? Can you see it? You can only observe its effects. Thus, we have decided that since things are blown and we feel a force, there must be some matter that moves and creates these effects. We call this matter air. I do not propose that air does not exist, but I do propose you can give me no visible evidence. This is my rebuttal to your claim that I am crazy for believing in invisible things.

Given the path of logic that proves air exists, is it so far a stretch to believe that perhaps coincidence is guided by some force? The vast majority of the world believes there is something guiding us, could the world throughout history really be as stupid as you claim?

I'm also glad that you believe that people who don't believe what you believe shouldn't vote, it's good to see you don't discriminate like those Christians who think that a culture that has existed and flourished since the beginning of recorded history could know a thing or two about how to live.

Find me a major ancient culture that at some point didn't treat women as inferior, believe the world was flat, or believe anything else that is contrary to modern science. Ancient man didn't have tractors to help him grow food, thus the biological tendency towards strength in men brought about a system where men hunted and harvested food while women performed subservient roles in return for a share of the food. Ancient man did not have satellite imaging of Earth or the capability to make trans-oceanic joureys, and the curvature of the planet is not visible from the ground, so he had no evidence to show the Earth was anything BUT flat. You'll find that the concept of the Universe revolving around the Earth was not a concept believed by ONLY Christians. Of course we know more than ancient cultures did, we have thousands of years of history they had no access to. I find it silly to judge an ancient culture's beliefs inferior simply because we know better now.

The main thing I am trying to point out is most of you are crying out against Baylor for discriminating in the same way you discriminate. You cannot claim to be an enlightened pinnacle of tolerance when you yourself discriminate against another group. I believe in tolerance so far as morality and the law allows, but this is a case where law and morality clearly give Baylor the rights they exercised, and so far the only arguments against this have been hyperbole and ad hominem against Christianity. Both are logical fallacies and frankly I came here expecting an enlightened debate but I'm walking away knowing that the responses will probably be further attempts to justify the "I don't believe in Christian values and I believe they should not be able to govern their own churches" stance, which is not a defensible stance.

[koopa]

Hitler HAD THE RIGHT to kill the jews. It wasn't our business. Should we have stayed outta that, too?

There's something I'd really like to yell at you only this isn't in GB yet. I hope you get the gist of what I want to say, though.
Apart from that your "comparison" is about as illogical as it gets.


the student handbook explicitly prohibits homosexuality

A group of people with similar views should have the right to form a community/college/whatever for the like-minded. For instance, say some Christians want to form a Christian school. Is it immoral if they refuse an atheist entry? That doesn't mean they hate atheists, it just means that they are Christians and want a place to be among those with similar beliefs. It in no way degrades atheists, Jews or Muslims if they can't go to an explicitly Christian organisation, after all no-one is stopping them from making their own atheist, Jewish, or Muslim school.

Likewise it is not sexist if a boy is refused entry into a girls' school. It does not mean boys are inferior to girls, or that the school thinks being male is morally inferior. It is simply a fact that there is a difference between boys and girls, and not a moral one at that.

The same applies to excluding a homosexual from a school that explicitly was for heterosexuals. It is a poor way of combatting illiberal views to say that no-one can have any views at all. My advice to the student involved would be to stop whining and go to a place that does tolerate his homosexuality.

EDIT: On rereading I see that some things in this post might be misinterpreted as racist. That was not my intention. I do not wish to in any way insult people with other races, religions or sexual orientations. My arguments do NOT speak for those who wish to exclude people due to some idea of 'racial inferiority'. I make a difference between saying "Christians should have the right to run Christian schools, as should any other religion" and "let's limit the rights of (insert group here) because they are inferior, and kick them from our school system".

[punkonjunk1024]

There's something I'd really like to yell at you only this isn't in GB yet. I hope you get the gist of what I want to say, though.
Apart from that your "comparison" is about as illogical as it gets.
.

I know it's loose as hell, and I'm sure this may end up in GB.
But I'm just saying. It wasn't our business when he started that whole genocide shpiel. Hell, we even did some of that eugenics BS in america for a while.
I know, let's not get into war politics and history, I just meant as a cute and simple metaphor... and dear god I need to leave so I'll formulate an actual retort laterzor. Stupid school.

[AtmaWeapon]

I know it's loose as hell, and I'm sure this may end up in GB.
But I'm just saying. It wasn't our business when he started that whole genocide shpiel. Hell, we even did some of that eugenics BS in america for a while.
I know, let's not get into war politics and history, I just meant as a cute and simple metaphor... and dear god I need to leave so I'll formulate an actual retort laterzor. Stupid school.The thing is it wasn't a very good metaphor.

For a long time, we DID think it was their business and it was America's intent to stay out of the war for as long as possible. It took an attack on Pearl Harbor to get us to join the war.

I personally think isolationism sounds like a good plan, but ultimately troubles in the world become troubles for everybody. There are many examples today of countries that violate the basic rights of their citizens and we do nothing more than complain about it in the UN. What happens on their soil is their business, but we have the right to complain about it.

Also remember that the holocaust and mistreatment of Jews was not fully realized until AFTER we joined the war; our primary motivation was that we allied with Britain and Germany was attacking Britain.

Basically what makes your metaphor so weak is you are comparing genocide to discriminating membership. The man's life is not in danger because of his expulsion, and he was not sent to a gas chamber with thousands of homosexuals, so I'd hardly consider the comparison of 'one man can't go to this college' to the holocaust ridiculous.

[Beldaran]

It's a perfect metaphor. We completely destroyed a nation because we were intolerant of their politics.

You took the metaphor a thousand times too far in an effort to make yourself look smart.

Christians using logic to argue is like pacifists using war to get their point across. Get it?

[AlexMax]

Someone explain to me how "Christian University" isn't an oxymoron.

Because, you know, I thought the purpose of a university was to get an education. Not have religious faggotry shoved down their throats.

That being said, however, I see no problem with them being an exclusive christian club. I think you ought to have a right to do that. I just don't see how an openly religious institution can also at the same time be a nationally acredited university, . But then again, I didn't write the rulebooks about what makes a university a university and what doesn't, so just consider this whole post opinion.

I know, I know, you guys would have loved for me to build up a solid argument and stomp yet another mudhole into a religious guy's asshole, but really, you guys are going a little bit off the wall with your religious bashing. As long as it's not getting any tax money, why the fuck should you care?

[Beldaran]

I just don't see how an openly religious institution can also at the same time be a nationally acredited university,

To be fair, Baylor is very rigorous and once you get into physics and math classes, the education is equal if not superior to any state school. Baylor is the school the smart, rich white kids with good grades go to. That and Rice University.

[AtmaWeapon]

Well I'd reply to AlexMax but he didn't really build a case and openly admitted not to take it as a case but there is a prevailing bias to all of the arguments in this thread.

Beldaran your analogy to WWII does not hold water. We were pacifists and isolationists before Japan attacked us, then we joined sides with Britain. Britain was upset about the Germans dropping bombs on them, so we helped our buddies out. Later, when we found out about the atrocities committed by the government, it fueled our war effort even further.

However, the primary reason for the war on Germany was the fact that they were attempting to invade one of our primary allies.

Additionally, your analogy of Christians using logic to pacifists using war is not only ridiculous, it exposes you as a ridiculous bigot. Pacifists are opposed to war and do not believe in using war in any case. You can find no Biblical support for the rejection of logic.

Of course, I'm assuming your defense of this analogy is something along the lines of "Christians debate the truth of xxx theory therefore they reject logic" but I can guarantee you whatever theory it is requires some measure of faith in its truth. You can't assume the truth of your conclusion to prove the conclusion.

The only points I "get" from your argument are the following:
1. I don't agree with you, therefore I'm wrong.
2. I am a Christian, therefore I'm wrong.
3. All Christians are sub-human and do not deserve to vote or have their institutions recognized.
4. Revoking the rights of individuals based on their beliefs or lifestyle is wrong.
5. You believe in revoking the rights of all people who believe differently than you.
6. Therefore, you are a shining example of tolerance and Christians are bigots.

If you don't see the flaws in that logic perhaps you should spend some time in logic courses.

I really don't understand why when Christians make generalizations we are bigots but when athiests do it they are blameless.

[AlexMax]

The only points I "get" from your argument are the following:
1. I don't agree with you, therefore I'm wrong.
2. I am a Christian, therefore I'm wrong.
3. All Christians are sub-human and do not deserve to vote or have their institutions recognized.
4. Revoking the rights of individuals based on their beliefs or lifestyle is wrong.
5. You believe in revoking the rights of all people who believe differently than you.
6. Therefore, you are a shining example of tolerance and Christians are bigots.

If you don't see the flaws in that logic perhaps you should spend some time in logic courses.

I really don't understand why when Christians make generalizations we are bigots but when athiests do it they are blameless.

WARNING: The following post is from my own personal perspective

Thus is the problem with militant atheists. If you turn atheism into a religion, that's exactly what you get. It might be a 'religion' with the right intentions, based on scientific fact and with the ability to change the rules as we go along, but you're just polarizing people. The problem is that atheism isn't a very attractive prospect.

Atheists can't fight a fair fight. We're either handicapped, or accussed of being bigots. We don't use indoctrination techniques, we don't use happy funtime songs, and we don't tell people what we want to hear. We just tell people the truth, as far as scientific knowledge can explain to them at that time. We don't know it all. What's more, this realm of uncertainty is cold. There is no social pat-on-back, there's no pastor sitting on high telling you that you're going to be all right, and it's KILLING you because all of your religious friends are constantly waging war on you with their precanned "Get this guy to beleive" rhetoric that sounds oh-so seductive. Yet we persist, because we don't want to feel like we've sold out the one thing that seporates us from the rest of the animal kingdom - critical thinking - by going back. For those of us who have really given thought to it, there is no middle ground.

WARNING: The following observation is anecdotal

Of course, there are the middle grounders for those who go to church on sunday just out of habit, the people who view church more as a social construct than a religious one. The problem with this is that with this recent resurgance of evangelical "holding your feet to the fire", it's gotten these middle grounders 'back in the faith'. With youth programs around the country trying to "make faith cool" and evangelical programs around the country reshaping their programs to be more accessable and be less 'crazy', while still keeping the message of "You're either with us or with them", it's polarizing these middle grounders in important issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

So before you wind up your persecution complex again, take a look at things from our perspective. I've seen it from yours.

Yes, I admit that I went through the exact thing that two paragraphs above. I was toying with losing my faith before being sent, with my youth group, to a "Hell House", which was singlehandedly responsible for having me outspokenly cling to my faith for another few years. However, I'm naturally inquisitive. After a few months of not being around my church in college, my natural propensity to question things woke up again, and free from the forced indoctrination of my home life (Partly enforced by my grandmother, partly enforced by my mother wanting company when going to church), I was finally free to shake the shackles with a clear consience. Now that I understand the tactics that my youth pastors had used, I have learend to see them for what they are, indoctrination techniques.

For fellow athiests, I recently viewed a very nice program, care of the BBC. It's a very interesting two part program called Root of all Evil? (http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/rootofevil.html) that goes into religious this from an educated athiest perspective. Quite interesting to watch. I say fellow athiests because it's very uncomprimising and would send a devout religious person in a tizzy at times.

[firebug]

Firt off, I agree with Baylor's right to discriminate. The man was unfit for the job. I wouldn't hire a retard for an accounting position.
Secondly, The whole argument about the Nazis and Hitler is completely unfounded. We didn't give two shits about that until the japs bombed us. Only then were we on a high-rollin, bad-guy killin, team america bandwagon.
And don't tell me we gave a fuck about the jews. We do our own ethnic cleansing. It goes like this: Join us or die. Just ask the native americans that used to live here. Shit. ask the alaskan natives that are still living up here. They used to be hunter-gatherers, useful happy people. Now we're here. We need their land. Oh sure, we're not going to outright kill them anymore, but we're going to tell them, you can only use this little bit of land to do your thing. Well, that bit of land does not support those people for very long. Now they have a choice: starve to death, or get a job. Not much of a choice eh? Leaves a lot to be said about the freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Oh yah, Organized religion is evil evil evil. It hands you the God-given right that you are better than everyone else. It's true. God told you!

[punkonjunk1024]

I'm too tired to get into this arguement, but

We do our own ethnic cleansing.
Go do some research on the early 1900's eugenics movement. IN AMERICA. It's some badass stuff. You don't really hear about that shit in school, at least, I didn't.

[AtmaWeapon]

...Hey that's pretty cool AlexMax, I can understand where you are coming from.

From my perspective, the only thing wrong with your perspective is a refusal to acknowledge that theories are not truth because they have not been proved. However, even if one of the scientific creation theories were found to be true, I would still attribute the initiation of the process to God. I tend to believe most theories of creation, evolution, and the like are not necessarily mutually exclusive with Christian theories, but I think most people are hesitant to say that for whatever reason. I guess you get kicked out of both camps when you don't polarize yourself.

Evolution's the funniest one to me. Either God decided to put a LOT of bones in the ground so he could laugh at our reconstructions of the dinosaurs or at SOME point in time these creatures existed. Going with the logical conclusion, these creatures must have existed and SOMEHOW we got the set of animals we have today.

The problem with science is "some point in time" and "somehow" are pretty vague and until we can fill them with fact evolution cannot be considered wholly truth. Conversely, creationism basicall fills "some point in time" and "somehow" with "magic" which is perfectly valid from a Christian frame of reference but pretty scientifically unsound.

I have my feelings on the issue but that's really for another thread. I just wanted to point out why I don't buy into the scientific explanation for everything.